The more "shallow politics" they feed me, the more I think "deep politics" is worth considering

[arendt]

There have been many commentaries and editorial cartoons on the surreal, laughable shallowness and superficiality of the topics and coverage of this presidential campaign. This shallowness begs a much more important question: What are they avoiding talking about?

DUers know. And they know that what's not being talked about is even worse than the non-coverage of the ongoing Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. What's not being talked about is even worse than the Payday Loan bailout of the big banks.

Nevertheless, the bipartisan support for the Payday Loan scam is a good place to begin talking about those things which our lords and masters wish to remain unspoken. The basic silence is about the Democratic Party's leadership's refusal to take a strongly partisan stance against Bush and the military-offshoring-banking (MOB) cabal that is robbing America blind. That is, the silence is about the fact that our representatives don't represent us.

Case in point: Sybil Edmonds. Now, here is a poster child for the total and treasonous corruption that has run this country under Bush. Selling nuclear secrets for profit to Arab countries. But look whose dirty little hand is also in the cookie jar: Israel. Well, you can stop right there. And that's exactly what the U.S. press and our Democratic Party has done for the last six years.

I guess the Dem leadership's attitude is that Sybil is just a rogue agent.

"What's a 'rogue' agent?, we asked.

"The honest law enforcement authorities, be it on the local, state, or federal level," Blackie replied. "Guys who weren't clued in on the protected nature of the enterprise being carried out."

No description we heard was more telling. "Rogue' agents were guys that weren't in on the joke.

- "Barry and the Boys", Daniel Hopsicker

A second case would be the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. While we're at it, why is the Democratic Party still chums with Traitor "I'm for McCain" Lie-berman? Just asking.

A third case: Retro-active telco amnesty. Harry Reid is bringing it to the floor for a second time over Christopher Dodd's "hold". Just whose side is Harry on?

Since the 2006 election, the number of instances like these has grown and grown. But anytime someone begins to talk about it, and to suggest that maybe something is going on "behind the scenes", two words are inevitably spoken: conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter that the DLC made a secret deal with Bush. Speculating about why they did it is CT. The Dem leadership makes zero noise about political prisoner Dan Siegelman, Governor of Alabama - and has done next to nothing about the US attorney purge that made him a prisoner. Any speculating about that is also met with the charge of CT.

CT here, CT there, pretty soon you are talking real paranoia. Which usually shuts down any further discussion.

The purpose of this post is to offer a way past the CT roadblock. I want to do that by reminding people that there is a middle ground that is neither CT nor the Washington Post's sanitized version of political reality. Appropriately, that middle approach is called "deep politics.

Conspiracy theories (in the words of Alexander Cockburn) 'encourage a belief that if we get rid of a few bad people, everything would be well in the world.'

I propose deep political analysis...not as a substitute or alternative to the structural analysis desired by Cockburn...but as an extension of it. I have ...argued that a true understanding...will lead, not to 'a few bad people', but to the institutional and parapolitical arrangements which constitute the way we are systematically governed. The conspiracies I see as operative, in other words, are part of our political structure, not exceptions to it."

Normally, these deep political processes are not brought to the public eye: for example, the way in which major drug traffickers are recurringly protected by the U.S. Justice Department... Such arrangements are widely known, but rarely written about. One way or another, scholars and journalists learn to back off...

A deep political system or process is one which habitually resorts to decision-making and enforcement procedures outside as well as inside those publicly sanctioned by law and society. In popular terms, collusive secrecy and law-breaking are part of how a deep political system works.

What makes these supplementary procedures "deep" is the fact that they are covert or suppressed, outside general awareness as well as outside acknowledged political processes. Sometimes the secret is an open one, as when a particular city knows that its cops are on the take, or a nation knows that its parties have found ways to completely thwart the intention of campaign-financing laws. But some secrets are more closely held.

We see deep politics in imperial and post-imperial systems which are accustomed to use criminal assets to intervene lawlessly in other societies. But it is also a feature of large-scale political systems which include within them ethnic communities or regions where the law of the outside majority is challenged by, and ultimately reaches an accommodation with, locally based gangs, triads, or mafias.

Deep political analysis focuses on the usually ignored mechanics of accommodation. From the viewpoint of conventional political science, law enforcement and the underworld are opposed to each other, the former struggling to gain control of the latter. A deep political analysis notes that in practice these efforts at control lead to the use of criminal informants; and this practice, continued over a long period of time, turns informants into double agents with status within the police as well as the mob. The protection of informants and their crimes encourages favors, payoffs, and eventually systemic corruption. The phenomenon of "organized crime" arises": entire criminal structures that come to be tolerated by the police because of their usefulness in informing on lesser criminals. In time one may arrive at the kind of police-crime symbiosis familiar from (Prohibition Era) Chicago, where the controlling hand may be more with the mob than with the police department it has now corrupted.

It is customary to acknowledge this kind of symbiosis as a local or regional problem, not a central one. But in the 1980s we learned in a court case that one of the mob's top men in the Teamsters, Jackie Presser (who had been a member of the Reagan presidential transition team), was simultaneously an FBI informant.

Such dirty realities are not usually talked about in classrooms. But the mechanics of accommodation are important, at least as much so in the area of political security, where security informants are first recruited, and eventually promoted to be double agents. Experience teaches us that these double agents tend to become increasingly important in the hierarchy of both the investigative agency and the party investigated...double agents (are) likely to become provocateurs...Truly successful double agents acquire their own agendas, distinguishable from those of their agency and possibly their party as well.

This is not a theoretical matter...Time after time, from the fiascos of Oliver North's Middle Eastern ventures to the bombings of Pan Am flight 103 and the (1992) WTC,, we have seen how the tolerated crimes of double agents have proven disastrous to those who think they control them.

----

A deep political system is one where the processes openly acknowledged are not always securely in control, precisely because of their accommodation to unsanctioned sources of violence, through arrangements not openly acknowledged and reviewed.

Years ago the late A. J. Liebling observed how difficult it was to separate the power of the mob from the power of City Hall, and he asked whether the powers of both were not a front for those private corporations who preferred endemic corruption to the enforcement of laws against themselves.

- "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK", Peter Dale Scott (1993, preface to 1996 edition)

That's about all I think DU can digest in one post. Bon apetit.

Please discuss.

arendt

[lvx35]

1. Thank you! I think that's the first time I've heard deep politics mentioned here.

And its such an important idea. It strikes me as funny how controlled our political discourse remains to this very day...Even here on DU where people have seen so much crap go down, the discourse remains self-controlled. We express shock and horror when we see the 8,405th peice of news indicating corruption taking place, and then we go back to talking about elections as if everything is hunky dory, very few of us actually acknowledge the extent of the corruption, accept its pervasive existene, and start mapping the political landscape off of it. Very few of us actually consider deep politics.

But we should. When we talk about things like which of the news conglomerates back which candidates, we are talking about the actual factors that will decide the election, a whole new landscape opens up. For instance Kucinich just got blocked from the CNN debates:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3147519
Do you know why? I do. It has nothing to do with OUR perceptions of him, its rooted entirely in deep politics, specifically corporate affiliations. Yet so often we sit around talking about our opinions, potentially fooling ourselves into thinking they matter more than they actually do. Does it really matter that we think such and such candidate is corporate? Obama and Hillary both have a chance of winning precisely BECAUSE they are corporate candidates, they are tied to the global power elite. Just like any Republican that can win. It seems bad but when we accept this, we can actually see how we fit into the larger picture of what's happening, than we can actually do something instead of expressing outrage the 9,000th time something corrupt happens.

Really I think its all about ACCEPTING HISTORY. Politics have always been, even in every monarchy, empire, communist state etc. And in those places it wasn't about "Democracy". It was about weapons and money and soldiers and clergy and traders and the press and affiliations and finaciers etc. etc. etc. I think there's an arrogance in Americans that makes us want to view ourselves as having a country that's different from this whole mess, but I question whether or not we ever really did.

[arendt]

2. What a literate response, for a second I thought I was back on Usenet...

I jumped at the opportunity provided by moving the Wild West candidate shoot-out away from GD to bring this topic up.

Granted I did so at midnight after the craziest day in a decade on Wall Street, yours was the only response.

I hope that others will find this thread and discuss it as well as you did.

I have to go to work early today (like now), but I will be back later.

arendt

[arendt]

5. If few at DU have heard of "deep politics", we are in worse shape than I thought...

But you may be right. When I look at the passive acceptance of the $50 Billion black budget I feel that democracy is doomed. If, say, 2% of that unsupervised money is used to corrupt our democracy, the effect would be massive. People aware of deep politics viscerally feel that black budget pressing on our democracy.

How can you have a democracy when you have massive illegal eavesdropping, when you can frame a sitting governor from inside the US attorney's office and then ship him around the country incommunicado like he was some detainee (another Kafka-esque construct that has no place in a democracy)?

How can you have a democracy when the president has been given the power to authorize kidnappings, transport to third-world dungeons, and torture with no oversight? When habeus corpus is suspended?

How can you have democracy when the mass media is now a total propaganda machine that erases candidates and issues that are inconvenient? When lunatic-fringe, fundamentalist religion is given credibility and science is censored?

How can you have a democracy with privatized, crooked voting machines run by ex-convicts and rightwing fanatics and overseen by crooked election officials?

----

It is close to hopeless when people look to good guys in the CIA to save our democracy from the neocon loons in the WH. I mean, think about it.

The CIA has been running drugs all over the world for fifty years (Air America, Iran- Contra, and god knows what they call it today), taking down democracies and propping up every two-bit gangster who will take our orders, and laundering money with the best of them (Nugen Hand Bank, BCCI). And these amoral killers and criminals are really going to save our democracy?

----

Of course, if you think about going up against these guys, that seems beyond hopeless. And, that is exactly how they want you to feel: just give up. To the best of us, they make "an offer you can't refuse". To the rest of us they say "shut up and do as we tell you".

To begin to get out of this nightmare, we must examine the deep politics of our situation. To tell the truth to ourselves about the corrupt society we live in. As you say:

we can actually do something instead of expressing outrage the 9,000th time something corrupt happens.

Really I think its all about ACCEPTING HISTORY. Politics have always been, even in every monarchy, empire, communist state etc. And in those places it wasn't about "Democracy". It was about weapons and money and soldiers and clergy and traders and the press and affiliations and finaciers etc. etc. etc. I think there's an arrogance in Americans that makes us want to view ourselves as having a country that's different from this whole mess, but I question whether or not we ever really did.

Before you can accept history, you actually have to learn it. Robert Parry calls what has been erased about the 1980s crime spree of the intelligence community "Lost History". Its as good a place as any to start.

arendt

[elizfeelinggreat]

9. thank you

For this thread. I hadn't heard the term deep politics before, either. Even with my limited knowledge, though, I knew this administration's endless constructs for war were a sham and I knew who would profit from those wars.

This kind of information is both enlightening and empowering and I wish more people on both sides of the political spectrum were exposed to it, I wish that all our great resources were used in a better way. If there were any justice for our current political players they would have been punished and our country would have learned some important information instead of just spawning a whole new generation of players. Imagine if the media that supports the endless twisting of information were held accountable also.


I looked for info on Robert Parry and found this in an interview in 2004 with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now's website:


AMY GOODMAN: Robert Parry today. The kind of discussion we’re hearing over the last few days is more than the discussion of a man who has just died, but it’s talking about a rewriting of the historical record. Can you talk about this discussion, whether it is in Central America or whether it’s the discussion of President Reagan winning the cold war?

ROBERT PARRY: Well, I think in essence Amy, what we have seen here is a continuation in this administration of some of the approaches that became—that really became very prominent in the Reagan administration. First, there is the manipulating of intelligence, exaggerating dangers that occurred both in strategic level with the Soviet Union in trying to present the Soviet Union as much more aggressive and powerful and effective than it turned out to be. It was a country on the verge of collapse. Then also exaggerating the threats from praises like Nicaragua, which were a Third World countries that were very much on the defensive and they were presented as threats to the United States. This was a systematic falsification of U.S. Intelligence and occurred at the C.I.A. The analytical division of the C.I.A. was virtually destroyed during that period of the 1980’s under Bill Casey and Robert Gates. This was very important because before then, there was much more independence within the C.I.A.‘s analytical division. Afterwards, there became—the C.I.A. basically became a conveyor belt for propaganda. We have seen that reoccur now with the Iraq situation when again, intelligence was falsified, and the threats were exaggerated, and then policies were put together to respond to those exaggerated threats. We have just seen the continuation of some very deceptive approaches to government and many of the people that took part in them has—I think the first caller mentioned and Dr. Chomsky mentioned were the same people involved today. And they just continued to follow the same policies. It was also an important element of this, which goes to the idea of perception management, which was a concept that was put in place during the early 80’s and the basic idea was that if you managed the perceptions to the American people about various event, particularly foreign events, that you can taken take actions that would not be supported by the American people, if seen in their full context. What we have seen with that is the idea if the people of the United States perceive Nicaragua to be a threat to their security, they would support the sending of weapons and the supporting the contras. If they saw the Sandinistas as being what they were, a struggling little government in Nicaragua, they probably wouldn’t. The problem has often been that in the case of these kinds of events, perception management became the role. That’s continued to today with Iraq.

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/7/robert_parry_on_what_the_corporate

[arendt]

10. You raise an important point: "the same people"

If there is nothing going on "behind the scenes", then why are the same bad actors (Gates, Negroponte, Abrams) driving the bus again?

And, as Parry says, "the CIA basically became a conveyor belt for propaganda".

So, are the Dems either fools (to be unaware of this), cowards (to do nothing about it), or knaves (actively involved in perpetuating and profiting from this corrupt system)?

That's a deep political question; and you won't hear much discussion about it.

arendt

[elizfeelinggreat]

12. The same corrupt people and actually

I think I do hear a lot of speculation why the Dems are behaving the way they are. I've read a lot of threads wondering why they do what they do. From what I see it's mystifying to many people here and very depressing, too.

Are they just human and making stupid mistakes (thinking people will truly see them as cowards)? Caught up in the system (perpetuating and profiting)? Foolish seems unlikely, considering their resources but they are humans, to go back to the first choice. I hate to sound like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat (but that's probably the way people felt about the Contra scandal when they first realized what might be going on) - perhaps the Dems are being threatened in some way we're ignorant of? That doesn't excuse them in my mind, that means we need stronger or smarter candidates, but it might explain some of their behavior.

What do you think?

[arendt]

13. I think they are either cowards or knaves...

no one gets to a leadership position by being a fool (unless they are a puppet like Ray-gun or W).

The Clintons are way, way too close to the Iran-Contra operation out of Mena, Arkansas to be naive. And, when the gloves came off at impeachment time, Bill had a whole bag full of blackmail material (Bob Livingston resigned the day he became House Speaker because his affairs became known). So, they are not cowards either. They play hardball.

Obama seems like a sheep-dipped conservative. He constantly pops off with rightwing positions: thinks Reagan was great, against universal health, anti-gay, constantly introducing religion. The Company was very experienced at creating "legends" for double agents. Its much easier to create deniability for a politician than cover for a secret agent. I don't trust him at all. His "arrival" on the national scene from nowhere is way too suspicious for me. The way the media don't treat him like your standard Dem (i.e., trash him) is remarkable (in a negative way).

Lieberman is a sheep-dipped reactionary who has dropped all pretense and come out as a warmongering Republican. But, he was intimately involved with the DLC. That says all I need to know about the DLC. It was and is a "front" operation for the Deep Political operatives in the Democratic Party.

Edwards, I still can't figure. He was gung ho war. Now he's not. He was Kerry's running mate. Now Kerry endorses Obama. You don't get to be VP candidate without seeing the Deep Political system. My question is: is his conversion genuine or is this just another "feint within a feint"? That is, Obama vs Hillary is a great way to have a psuedo-contest. The system wins whoever wins, and it pushes everyone else off the front page. So, is Edwards just insurance in case the HRC/BO charade is too obvious to sell? Or insurance in case the (not completely under control) fight between HRC and BO does so much damage that the system needs another candidate?

----

Deep Politics means that "everything is interesting", but nothing is what it seems. Way too easy to go into full-blown CT.

I'd rather deal with exposing the rogue CIA, the dirty bankers, etc. Trying to finger corrupt candidates is way too tricky and too easy to spin away.

----

That's a bit of what I think.

arendt

[elizfeelinggreat]

15. thanks

I don't agree entirely but you make many good points. I agree about not going after the politicians but rather exposing larger corruption.

what is "full-blown CT"?

I was listening to part of the Diane Rehm show yesterday and she had the author of “Confessions of a Political Hitman” on. Very depressing stuff. And we're distracted by this junk all the time.

Here is a link to another interview he did: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13wwln-Q4-t.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/H/Helms,%20Jesse&pagewanted=all

[arendt]

16. Full-blown CT is "black helicopter, survivalist, Lyndon Larouche paranoia"...

Do you mean "Economic Hitman"?

arendt

[elizfeelinggreat]

24. Not Economic Hitman

Someone doing something much more mundane but which greatly affects our country's political discourse - from the interview:

Are you well paid for your work? Let’s just say “over six figures.”

You claim to have helped elect Republicans including President Bush, Jesse Helms and Larry Craig. Have you worked directly for any of them or for their campaigns? No. Researchers are not usually hired by the campaign. We are more often hired by consultants or attorneys or others working for the campaign, so that we won’t come up in the candidates’ F.E.C. reports.

He reminded me of Allen Raymond, the guy who jammed phones during an election, who said this on TPM cafe:

Setting aside any debate over such a thing as hell, I was never hired by a campaign to be the moral compass. In fact, morality is a slippery slope and not a political dialogue I would willingly enter or incite. I was hired to engineer victory. With so much at stake, morality was not a luxury to be afforded candidates or their staff.

Campaign managers and consultants, in both U.S. political parties, are hired to win. Period. They are not hired to ease the political conscience – if anything they are hired to render it powerless (or at least frustrate it to the point of it giving up and going away). That was the dynamic I bought into when I became a Republican campaign manager and consultant; party v. party; Republicans v. Democrats; winning v. losing.

<snip>

As a Republican campaign operative at the Republican National Committee it was drilled into me that election law attorneys serve the purpose identifying the bright line of the law so it could be taunted but not crossed. Anybody who has a problem with that or doesn’t get it doesn’t understand America. America is about self interest, within the rule of law. That’s where I erred.

[arendt]

26. Ick, what an unrepentant slimeball. Not at all enlightened, like the Economic Hitman...

people like him are what keeps this corrupt gang in power. And the rich know that people like him are always for hire.

arendt

[lvx35]

34. Its a really good point about learning history. I for one think we should look to CT community.

The Conspiracy Theory community ("truth movement" as they prefer to be called) has been growing in popularity for a very long time here in the US, and I believe its because they have actually advanced a narrative of deep politics. Its often silly, or "tinfoil hat" stuff, but nevertheless, its a narrative, a lexicon, for talking about things that are really going on. And if you keep a foot in both worlds (regular news and conspiracy) you'll find an uncanny ability to predict future events in the conspiracy community that is lacking in the mainstream news world. I'm talking about the general shape of future events, they are often wrong on the details where mainstream news is often right, but they demonstrate a bigger grasp of the "big picture" as it is going to unfold.

I for one think we need to stop demeaning these guys and take a long hard look at what they've gotten right as well as what they have gotten wrong. What they've gotten right is clearly the idea of "conspiracies" running things. But what is that? A conspiracy is a collaboration of people in secret to commit a crime, so right off the bat they're pointing this accusing finger at people. What if we take that out and speak in terms of "subtle collaboration", where we view the world in terms of people collaborating in ways that aren't apparent, but not judge them. We can immediately start tracing these alliances and collaborations by tracing who benefits from who's actions. Halliburton is clearly collaborating with the Bush administration, as is Blackwater, and its extremely simple to trace the circle. Bush's policies make them money, everybody involved in the administration has great jobs with these companies when they quit. There's nothing subtle about this. But what about the other ones? We can get a feel for the major news networks by looking at who's news benefits what candidates...And the surprising thing is that when we look at the parent companies, at donations and policies, we see the same circles of interest becoming clear. But what's interesting about this is that it doesn't TAKE people sitting around at the news networks conspiring, it just takes editors with a gut feeling of what makes a good story that happens to be profitable (through deep channels) and some analyst above them looking at the company profits related to times their stories went out, to promote them. The collaboration happens automatically, because corporations do whatever increases profits, they don't care if it comes from deep mechanisms dealing with political affiliations or simple ones.

And that last part is what conspiracy theorists often don't understand. Though they it is effective to view the world in terms of these hidden collaborations, its not because the people involved often know what the hell they are doing, what the hell they are part of. GWB may think God wanted him to become president to hire these companies. Hey may be insane. But if it looked good to the companies, it was a go, his campaign was funded...and the people deciding this were just analysts trying to do what was profitable to their corporations, that's it.

And that brings us to the most toxic idea of the of the CT people, the idea of THEM. Now I think I've had some experience dealing with THEM, and I'm not trying to undermine what you said about crimes and so forth in history committed by such and such. I am attacking the idea that there is this THEM who knows, and once you cross the line into THEM you know what's going on. Its absolutely not true. I think when you cross into anything like an intelligence network or "conspiracy" you find yourself operating in an incredibly murky world. People who think they are "in the know" form secretive sources are most often cult members, its one of the defining traits of cults. Of course, what they are "in the know" about is pure Kool-Aid, designed to manipulate them to do things for the cult leader. The same is true of the intelligence world, I am sure. The people who really know it know that they know nothing, they are feeding information into a network of which they know little...Its been like that for ages, to prevent leaks, moles, and brutal interrogation of captured assets/agents. And I'm sure its like that in any non-government corporate group as well.

So what you have instead of an all knowing THEM is people trying to do their jobs, fill their niches, etc. as serves the interest of the company and thus their careers. We see this feeding the machine that got Bush elected, and we see it after. The CIA called Bush "Number one customer" or something, because their job is ultimately to report to them. Now what kind of Kool-Aid might possibly insane Bush like to drink? Whatever it is, producing it is going to lead to career advancement there, and therefore its going to be a huge motivation at a personal level, which is where these things ultimately unfold. Not producing it is going to lead to starting over, possibly with no references which could be daunting for older agents.

What I'm really trying to say here is that the CT movement advances a theory of deep politics, but shoots itself in the foot by villianizing SO MANY people. Everybody knows somebody who works in one of these companies/agencies, and reports to their own families no conspiracies, because the collaborations/conspiracies are more invisible than that, even when you're right on top of them. (like with the news networks) And when CT people start pointing fingers these people lash back against attacks on their Friends. Also I think love an compassion are hallmarks of true understanding. Its very possible that that the Iraq war was started because somebody wanted to prevent the divorce by buying his wife the new Lexus and did what he had to do for the company to make it happen. Very possible. It sounds absurd, but all these collaborations are the sums of individual human actions like this done for individual human reasons, weaving the vast tapestry of events we perceive as reality. When we are able to throw aside the conspiratorial fear of THEM, while observing the collaborations in the tapestry that shape our world, I think we have a real tool for change, a true theory of deep politics.

[arendt]

40. You really ARE literate...can't do justice to your post in the time available...but here goes...

> I think when you cross into anything like an intelligence network or "conspiracy" you find yourself operating in an incredibly murky world.

Amen to that. I think that sank in when I tried to read Umberto Ecco's "Foucault's Pendulum".

> Everybody knows somebody who works in one of these companies/agencies, and reports to their own families no conspiracies, because the
> collaborations/conspiracies are more invisible than that, even when you're right on top of them...these collaborations are the sums of individual
> human actions like this done for individual human reasons, weaving the vast tapestry of events we perceive as reality.

Here you will get some pushback from me.

At the focal point of these agencies, really bad, really nasty shit happens. Arms get handed over to scummy thugs. Drug deals that will ruin many peoples' lives are made. Banks are looted. Tax money is diverted for personal use. The people who do these things are not innocent guys in grey flannel suits. They may try to have a normal family life, by keeping their families in the dark. But, at bottom, for the operatives in the field, the E. Howard Hunts, the Barry Seals, the Ollie Norths, their "individual human reasons" are greed, sadism, and power lust.

It is an open question how far back in the chain of command you have to be to rationalize this shit, to treat it as nothing but numbers in a spreadsheet or talking points on a viewgraph. But, if those people could be surfaced, you could legitimately court martial your way up the chain of command.

So, while I agree that drawing THEY too broadly is shooting yourself in the foot, drawing it too narrowly is inviting THEM to shoot you in the head.

----

I'm not satisfied with this response, but I have another idea I want to get into this thread before it dies a natural death. So, I will leave it at this.

Thanks for an interesting post.

arendt

[lvx35]

56. Thanks...And sorry for writing novella on ya'

Its just that your post touched on some really important stuff for me and really got me thinking. Thanks again.

Briefly to respond to your comments, I want to emphasize that compassion is just the vehicle of understanding human behavior, not an end in itself. If somebodies actions started a war because they wanted to get a diamond for their wife, it doesn't make the war better. The soldiers and innocents are still dead. But calling them evil is a conversation stopper, it elicits an emotional response to destroy that individual person rather than fix the systemic flaws which rewarded their immoral actions with money in the first place.

My point is that sometimes it really does pay to have a little sympathy for the devil, especially when you are trying to stop evil things from happening. You can speak of greed and blood lust and predatory ways all you want...but at some point you just have to accept that these things are in the nature of certain of God's beasts. It doesn't make sense to release a tiger in an elementary school and call the tiger "evil" because bad things happened. It was only following its nature, and the truth is there are no "good" tigers in those circumstances. (aka power corrupts) What we need to do is compassionately accept the tiger as just following its natural way, and make sure tigers are put in positions where they can't hurt people: Zoos and refuges.

That's what I'm talking about with compassion, its about accepting what can't be changed in order to focus on the systemic changes that we can really achieve.

Peace.

[arendt]

58. Novellas are great. I crave literate stuff. More power to you that you can churn it out.

Given all the nuance that PD Scott deals in, I can appreciate your sensitivity to "conversation stoppers".

And, I've heard the parable about the tiger before, so I get it.

Problem is, right now the tigers are busy putting the people into zoos and refuges.

In post #42, I put forward a plan for systemic change. I would value your comments on it.

arendt

[OneGrassRoot]

3. I have neither the time nor energy this morning to offer the thoughtful...

response your post deserves.

May I please just say "Bravo!" - some of us do try to get to the "nitty gritty" truth of the shallow tidbits offered to distract the masses. I've gotten used to being disparaged as being a conspiracy theorist, especially about the MSM having agendas in shaping storylines rather than reporting facts.

A big K&R for you! :hi:

[arendt]

4. I'm busy today too. Just time to keep it kicked (which it needs, unfortunately). n/t

[arendt]

6. The latest example of Deep Politics: quashing the Miers-Bolton subpoenas, yet again...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2748901&mesg_id=2748901

[InkAddict]

7. Happy to K&R this thoughtful post and discussion.

I do see a problem though. How does one go about cleaning up the rampant corruption of this system of shallowness. "Accepting" history seems to imply an "if you can't lick 'em, join em" philosophy which leads right back to Square One - undercover investigations that corrupt absolutely???

I'm interested in others' expressed solutions and/or processes needed to collectively renew our democratic society while living with "deep politics," a term I had not heard before but instinctively have felt, usually in the pit of the belly.

[elizfeelinggreat]

11. I have felt it, too

Not only felt it but felt oppressed by it. The term accepting in the OP implied learning the truth to me, accepting what happened instead of trying to paint a rosy picture. Once you know what makes things tick you have a chance to change their motivation I would think.

When I see what the Congress is doing now I think that there has to be another reason for their inaction - perhaps they are caught in some political intrigue the way so many citizens are caught in a cycle of just trying to manage from day to day and not knowing, never mind accepting, the bigger picture.

Perhaps I'm just feeling optimistic today in believing that if people knew more they would make better choices for themselves and our country, our world. Some days I do feel the opposite and on those days I have to admit I try to avoid political thought and discussion.

[arendt]

17. A lot of people are repressing their feelings (that something is rotten)...

> The term accepting in the OP implied learning the truth to me, accepting what happened
> instead of trying to paint a rosy picture.

Right. The author of Deep Politics says that part of the reason you don't hear about these topics is that people are psychologically afraid to say "my country is a corrupt and scary place". They feel better if they pretend that there is no connection among all these outrageous incidents.

> When I see what the Congress is doing now I think that there has to be another reason
> for their inaction - perhaps they are caught in some political intrigue...

Perhaps? You are too kind. They are either complicit or being blackmailed or intimidated. Remember the anthrax addressed only to Democrats? (Investigation? What investigation?)

arendt

[arendt]

8. Another censored item: the banking solvency crisis (hiding the M3, etc.)...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2748492&mesg_id=2748492

[w8liftinglady]

14. Kicking and rec'ing...I need to read this several times to absorb it...great piece

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Thank you for your thoughtful presentation of something I've felt for a long time

As I go through life, I see people who "get it," and equally fine and moral people who accept the surface presentation and don't get it. They may be very well informed in terms of the corporate media, but they can't see (or choose not to look for) the way that everything is connected.

Take any issue that you're concerned about, ask "Why isn't anyone doing anything about this?" and then start digging. You find that the same people who are outsourcing jobs are also raping the environment and funding conservative candidates and buying media outlets and buying politicians. The same people who are profiting from our constant wars are the ones who own most of the nation's broadcast media. The same people who make billions by underpaying their workers and using sweatshops to make products also fund "foundations" that try to hijack religious groups for political purposes. In one case I know of directly, the ladyfriend of the owner of a CIA front company is a state legislator.

Once you see that everything is connected, the mass media seem intolerably silly and childish. People are dying miserable deaths due to actions of the U.S. and its allies, but the newspapers and TV are all full of the suicide of an actor. The massive and simultaneous dumbing down of all commercial media can't be a coincidence.

There are few people who get this. People who don't get this see those of us who are aware as paranoid or overly serious. We need to "take off our tin foil hats" or "lighten up."

[arendt]

19. To avoid being labeled CT, I tend to point out the corruption, the cronyism, the black budget...

I figure if enough people get sent to those topics enough times, the light bulb will eventually go on for some of them.

Unfortunately, confronting people who are repressing their comprehension of this only digs them deeper into their position. So, it is a very slow process - probably too slow given the ability of the mass media to brainwash entire generations before I have "put my pants on".

arendt

[Orwellian_Ghost]

20. K&R

[CGowen]

21. Scott is known on DU I would say,and I like the fact the he criticizes left-gatekeepers like Chomsky

and rejects the current system and calls it sick .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_uad3-RsQk

[arendt]

23. I want to believe; but a show of hands would help me more. Who has heard of Deep Politics?

I guess that I was hoping for a link from DU, not youtube.

Thanks, though, for the link. Boy has he gotten old!

arendt

[CGowen]

25. I posted it last year on DU, if you click on links you'll find one from DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x38319


edited to add:


when I posted the 1 hour Berkley interview of him in "Books: Non-Fiction" not many responded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfi_fJNMv04

[arendt]

27. Thanks. I missed that last year. At that time, I didn't know him. Don't check the Books forum. n/t

[scarletwoman]

35. I'm raising my hand, but I have no way that I know of for recovering my oldest DU posts

in order to give you links.

When I first got here on DU I was really fired up. I used to post all kinds of radical stuff that I came across as clicked all over the web. Peter Dale Scott and his concept of "deep politics" was just one of the things I used to post about.

I came across Peter Dale Scott and his writings about "deep politics" shortly after 9/11/2001. 12/31/1999 was the date that I had finally gotten my very own computer up and running and connected to the internet. As an old and still-radical hippie (born 1949), getting on the web was a dream come true -- I was finally going to be able to tap into the Group Mind.

And, from the moment I got connected up, I went straight to political stuff -- because my entire worldview from age 14 on was irrevocably shaped by the JFK assassination. On the Sunday that Jack Ruby shot Oswald on live TV, my whole family was sitting together in the living room watching the news together -- so there we were, we all got to see it on live TV.

Talk about a crack in reality! My dad, fatefully, spoke first. "We'll I guess they've made sure that we'll never really know who killed the President."

That was that. I was snapped into a totally different angle from which to observe the world than that promoted by the general run of consensus reality. Which led to being a "turn on, tune in, drop out" hippie, of course. Which led to me start digging through levels and levels of political stuff on the internet, which led me to Peter Dale Scott.

And when I found Peter Dale Scott and started reading, it was like a lightening strike. Someone was articulating what I had always suspected to be the real "reality".

Please forgive this overlong, rambling post. I should have said right off that I'm delighted and grateful that you've gone to the trouble of starting this outstanding thread.

I don't try as hard as I used to, so I'm always enormously glad to see others picking up the ball and running with it.

:loveya:
sw

[arendt]

38. That's a very personal story. Thanks for sharing...

I remember seeing the whole Ruby thing on TV, but it somehow didn't register very hard. Don't remember what the folks said. I was not politically aware at the time.

Thinking about it, I don't have an "aha" moment like you do. I just kept noticing, a little bit at a time, how the conventional narrative was full of holes. But, when I would mention it to other people, they would think I was funny. Story of my life.

I just tripped over Scott in the last week, when I was re-reading Barry and the Boys after watching that PBS show about the JFK assasination.

I'm not really running very hard with deep politics; just absorbing something new by talking about it and playing with it.

arendt

P.S. You are not an "old" hippie lady. You're about my age; and I am definitely not old.

[scarletwoman]

39. How about "old" as in having been at it for a long time?

;)

[arendt]

41. How about an "experienced" hippie lady...no, wait. that's not what I meant. :-)

[scarletwoman]

43. Heh. It's entirely accurate.

;)

[Uncle Joe]

22. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, arendt.

[Elspeth]

28. The only thing I would add is

Deep politics is global.

[arendt]

29. Thanks. Thats an important point that I failed to mention...

We have drug running gangsters in many third world countries.

We have the corrupt governments of those countries.

We have the First World intelligence agencies that arm and train these corrupt governments and take a cut of the profits for further systemic corruption.

We have the first world gangsters that distribute the drugs.

We have the first world bankers that launder the drug proceeds.

We have the first world politicians bought by the first world bankers/dealers and/or manipulated by the first world intelligence agencies.

We have the international business organizations, like NAFTA, GATT, Davos, which codify the rules under which the drugs/arms/hot money flows somehow never show up on the law enforcement radar scope

---

Yes. GLOBAL deep politics explains a lot. Business has been praising globalization for a decade. And for a decade, its critics have pointed out that the biggest beneficiary of globalization is organized crime.

arendt

[Elspeth]

32. I really think this is a valuable thread.

So I'll kick it again.

[starroute]

30. But once you start looking for deep politics, where do you stop?

I never understood why the Democratic Congress fell all over itself to give Reagan everything he wanted in 1981. There was a recession, his approval ratings weren't all that high, and yet Congress acted as though Reagan's policies were irresistible.

I never understood why the Kennedy administration simply handed the communication satellites over to the corporations in 1962. I was 15 at the time, and that was probably the one event that did most to destroy my faith in the system -- far more than the Cuban Missile Crisis a few weeks later, since they at least managed to get that one more or less right.

Retroactively, I don't understand why the same corporations that had been playing footsie with the Nazis before World War II were able to get back into good graces so easily once the war started. Well, I half understand -- they had the country over a barrel, because they were needed for the war effort -- but I don't know why they were allowed to set their own terms instead of being told they were on probation. And I certainly don't know how people of that stripe came to dominate US foreign policy as soon as the war was over.

There are some things that can be explained away as the result of J. Edgar Hoover blackmailing everyone in DC, but there are others that are far too systemic. I realize this is veering off somewhat from the idea of deep politics as having to do with informants and covert ops and such, but there are many things that can never be understood except through an understanding of class and the role of the elite.

Perhaps the connecting link is that elites should basically be thought of as a special kind of criminal class, which habitually operates outside the law and acknowledges no obligations to the larger society. (Certainly, the strong elite strain in the CIA, at least early on, would tend to confirm that.) Fish rot from the head, as they say, and blaming the corruption of the system on its criminal informants seems like grabbing the fish by the wrong end.

[arendt]

31. Good question. And, you also ask about "elites"...

First, elites.

There is a book called "Elite Deviance", author's last name is Simon. He postulates that societies go bad when those on top decide the rules don't apply to them.

As to why this happened here, as opposed to, say Great Britain, may have to do with scale. The U.S. is a huge, low-density country. There are lots of places for the elites to hide their schemes. Smaller countries have fewer physical places to hide things, fewer corporate places, etc.

Unfortunately, now that the scale is global. The global elites have been tremendously empowered.

----

As to your childhood experiences, I think anyone born post-WW2 has no appreciation of how class-ridden U.S. society was before FDR. They are only vaguely aware of the Pinkertons, the Palmer Raids, Teapot Dome, Huey Long, etc. I think DUers have heard of the Smedley Butler mess. Essentially, big business ran the country, and they ran it corruptly. And, because the top tax rates were low and there wasn't much in the way of stock regulation, the rich were still impoverishing the country.

Business was not only needed for the war effort, it was needed for everything. There were no countervailing government organizations. FDR is so widely hated because he set up everything we take for granted.

When he died and left the ward-heeling Harry Truman in charge, Harry was dead meat for the elites. They sold him the National Security Act of 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act. They stomped out National Health Insurance.

----

Finally, where do you stop?

You stop when the public is once again conscious of CLASS WAR. When that phrase is no longer cause for instant derision. Because once that phrase is legitimate, then a large part of deep politics can be brought to the surface. At the same time we elevate that term, we need to drastically curtail the excuse of NATIONAL SECURITY for every dirty act in the class war.

----

Well, that was way too long.

arendt

[Karenina]

33. . .

[scarletwoman]

44. Not "too long" at all. It would be great if it were much longer.

Unfortunately, it seems to be hard to keep most people's attention on this sort of thing.

Some time back I realized that my favorite motto is, "No war but the class war."

I know that not many people get it, but that doesn't take away from how true I think it is.

sw

[arendt]

45. I have had to spend a lot of time today responding, or this thread would have sunk...

people don't think structurally any more. There are no big plans. So, the corporations can just mop up the resistance one pocket at a time.

"Men with Guns" coming to a city near you, real soon. Smile for the nice Blackwater goon.

arendt

P.S. Any reaction to my four point plan?

[scarletwoman]

49. In answer to your question, "Any reaction to my four point plan?", I'll post below. (nt)

[arendt]

46. The book "Elite Deviance" is in its 7th hardcover printing

http://www.amazon.com/Elite-Deviance-7th-David-Simon/dp/0205321763

A little pricy for me. But paperbacks seem to be available.

arendt

[arendt]

36. Randi Rhodes doing some Lost History

Randi Rhodes talking about government running the drug trade in the 1980s:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2751914&mesg_id=2751914

Looks like someone else has decided to bring up government corruption.

arendt

[scarletwoman]

37. Kicking -- I already rec'd... (nt)

[arendt]

42. A four point political agenda for deep politics

I think that drugs, oil, the military, and money are what drives deep politics. That is hardly profound; although you might add the oil, weapons, and drugs to:

Follow the Money!

That leads me to how to deal with deep politics. I think we have to drain the swamp. To me that suggests four courses of action whose political incorrectness to our overlords tells me they are probably correct:

1. We need to legalize at least some drugs. Put them on prescription. I don't care how. Drugs fund a lot of this; and drugs are currency - small, high value. Legalization will reduce our prison population, which defunds the Prison Industrial Complex.

2. We need alternative energy programs. They reduce the power of Big Oil. They reduce the justification for military intervention and the MIC. They can create huge numbers of domestic jobs and domestic industries.

3. We need to get the banking and stock trading systems back under government regulation. That would let us trace all the money laundering and CIA proprietary companies. Given the current economic debacle, this regulation should not be impossible.

4. We need to end the various wars. Doing so will reduce the cover for the CIA black programs. Ending the war is finally popular; but getting at the CIA is on no one's list of things they want to do. This is the hardest nut to crack.

To sloganize: Legalize, Alternate, Regulate, Come Home - LARC. Rhymes with NARC.

What do you think? If you never saw this post, and were just presented with these four items as a political agenda, could you support that agenda? If yes, please help me invent a non-deep politics reason for grouping these four items together. You know: economic and social justice or something.

arendt

[scarletwoman]

51. Please bear in mind, I'm writing in haste because I have to go.

My initial reaction is that your proposed solutions are too statist oriented for my taste.

My own thoughts run more to radical decentralization and devolution into much smaller scale sociopolitical soveriegn entities and economies.

Admittedly, there are many immediately apparent flaws in that line of thought. It's a work in progress.

sw

[arendt]

52. I'm an urban techie. I suspect my daily routine would be too statist for you :-)

Thanks for contributing.

The problem with decentralization is that Blackwater isn't going to decentralize voluntarily.

arendt

[scarletwoman]

53. "Blackwater isn't going to decentralize voluntarily." You have to destroy their food source.

You have to destroy the global capitalist syndicate. You destroy it by ceasing to cooperate with it.

It's how Gandhi got the British Empire out of India: you stop cooperating with your own oppression.

sw

[arendt]

54. Americans aren't 1% as enlightened as Indians were in Ghandi' time

I respect your commitment. I just don't see how we're going to get that kind of psychological shift unless we first blow up every media outlet in the country.

arendt

[scarletwoman]

57. You just start small and locally. Guerrilla cells, as it were.

:evilgrin:

Build alternative local and small-scale institutions. Build up parallel economic models -- bartering, micro-lending, local food sources, local energy generation, all small scale.

Start with where you are, work with what you have around you. You can't wait for a "shift", you have to throw a pebble into the pond and let the ripples spread out.

sw

[arendt]

59. Your're going to get a chance to do this soon, as "The Long Emergency" sets in...

and you are right that you don't wake up one day and, presto, a shift has occurred.

We are definitely supporting local food sources; and I am constantly looking at ideas for local (if not on my own property) energy sources.
But, we will have to wait until whatever unpredicable event pushes us across some point of no return, and we enter into the post-free-lunch world.

If you do your thing, and I do mine, and we monitor each other's results, some hybrid might occur that helps us both.

arendt

[scarletwoman]

60. Well, you'll always be welcome in my workers paradise organic commune!

:hippie:
sw

[arendt]

61. And you in my alternative-powered, green tech, wired community!

Peace. Must sleep. Been pushing this hard all day; and all I have to show are some good exchanges (just kidding. It was worth it.)

arendt

[tom_paine]

77. 0.01% is more like it. Deliberately neutralized and nullified and dumbed down.

easy clay in the hands of the Elites.

And you are correct about it being "cemented in stone", as it were.

I agree it is far too late for the psychological shift. We have been mentally reprogrammed into a very similar replica of 1930s Germany.

Co-operating with our own oppression? That is far too tepid for what is mostlikely coming. We are going to rush headlong with masturbatory excitement into our own oppression, just like the 1930s Germans did.

I hope I am wrong, but I don't see much of a chance and somethign like this "larger issue" of Deep Politcs? 99.99% of the Imperial Subjects of Amerika would blank out on you before you even started to explain three sentences, like on that show "Scrubs".

It is not Elitist, and I am not saying that we are any better than anyone else. We are smart in this area, dumb in others. It just so happenes that the areas we are dumb in aren't going to lead us to support evil (though we might make ourselves miserable).

But it is the simple fact of the matter. 99.99% leaves how many? 30,000? There are FAR more than that ready to torture and brutalize their fellow citizens once they are given "permission by authority" to do so...they have been programmed that way. Just listen to Bushie Radio and see.

If you haven't yet arendt, click on my YouTube link below which is Naomi Wolf's angle on this. My other signature link is to Prof. Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" and something lese to red is John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience".

And of course, the seminal work which shows that this has all happened before:

http://www.amazon.com/Defying-Hitler-Memoir-Sebastian-Haffner/dp/0312421133/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197208607&sr=8-2

[arendt]

79. Hey, I'm not used to being out-pessimist-ed!

We are going to rush headlong with masturbatory excitement into our own oppression, just like the 1930s Germans did.

I hope I am wrong, but I don't see much of a chance and somethign like this "larger issue" of Deep Politics? 99.99% of the Imperial Subjects of Amerika would blank out on you before you even started to explain three sentences, like on that show "Scrubs".

I take your point, but would quibble with your number. I mean, there are more than 30,000 people who make political contributions. So, I might argue to raise your number up to 0.1%. But, I take your point.

But, the beautiful thing that the psy ops boys have shown us is that you CAN effect big change with small numbers.

I'm sure you're familiar with the propaganda concept of "crystallization", a tipping-point moment in which a propaganda line becomes accepted and internalized by the culture. Well, I think we are going to have such a moment around corporations/globalization/crooked politicians. If we can avoid nominating the worst Dem candidate possible, the GOP are toast for decades - and with them, the most virulent of the authoritarian politicians. Of course, that depends on which moment the whole rotten economic ponzi scheme collapses. I personally hope it collapses before the election so all the blame lands on the GOP; I'm sure Karl Rove is striving hard to keep it going until after - if for no other reason than that a Depression would sure make people vote against the GOP.

As long as the Dem nomination hasn't been handed to the worst possible candidate, I have some miniscule hope. Watching Bill Clinton trash himself and his "legacy" is most amusing.

arendt

[starroute]

63. The arms trade can't be left out of the picture

In part because drugs-and-arms almost invariably go together. (Think Iran-Contra.) In part because the arms trade fuels the wars, especially the small local ones. And in part because it is so pervasive, operating at every level from the US arming the Saudis to some random weapons dealer arming the local drug smugglers.

The arms trade is immensely enriching -- right up there with drugs and oil -- immensely corrupting, and immensely destructive. The world is addicted to all three of those revenue sources, and all three are killing it.

[arendt]

71. True, but its all that's left of our economy, so its easy for the media to slime anyone who...

"wants to weaken our national defense AND harm our economy".

My approach would be to wind down the wars by legalizing the drugs. Drug money is used to bar the arms that keep the drug producing regions in enough turmoil that law enforcement can't control the traffickers.

Legal drugs = less drug money = less arms purchases.

At the same time, there are drugs we can stamp out. Methamphetamine is top of my list. There was a story on PBS (who censors anything vaguely lefty these days) about how there were only a dozen companies in the world that produced the raw materials for Meth. Control their output and you would stop the Meth epidemic cold.

----

I recognize the arms trade is a huge problem, but I can't see tackling it head on. My approach is to stop the reason for the wars (oil, drugs).

arendt

[kineneb]

65. your four points look good to me, and deep thoughts

No, I have not heard the term "deep politics", but I suppose I have been doing it all along. Due to my OCD, when I get an idea about something, I tend to dive into the research and not surface until I am satisfied with the results.

One of my on-going research/contemplation progects is the influence of old fascist movements on the current world politics, especially the post-WWII influx of Nazis into US intelligence agencies. My favorite reference book on this topic is Martin Lee's The Beast Reawakens. By my estimate, the Nazi underground and their followers have had remarkable (and scary) success, especially recently. The subject requires its own post, which I may do someday, with help from our Octafish and friends. Wrapping my muddled brain around such things right now is beyond my ability.

Another research subject, which hits very close to home, is the relationship of occupational hazardous chemical exposure to development of disease later in life. Again, fodder for a full posting.

As to your four points, they are needed to slow the death spiral in which this country finds itself. I am not sure it can be stopped.

Becoming an empire was the biggest mistake. Empires are like packaged food and medicines: they all come with an expiration date. Ours seems to be approaching rather rapidly.

ed-forgot some words

[arendt]

73. Thanks for adding the references to the thread.

The day we can publicly acknowledge the bright thread of gangster-spy corruption that has run through America since Prohibition is the day that we begin to have control over our politics.

You can't fight what you deny exists. You just wonder why there are so many "lone gunmen".

arendt

[lvx35]

67. Hey good points.

The right sort of ideas. Really, I would say #2 and #3 are the most important at this point. In fact, if you could pull off #3 in terms of the right economic reform, all else would follow.

But we're talking about slaying giants here, the real question is not "what" but "how". These thoughts have been thought before. People like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul advocate precisely this sort of thing, which is why they are doomed: Because superficial political power depends on deep politics, not the other way around. I think to take on these kind of forces, you have to look at the entire systems we exist within, and think about drawing up frameworks for a successful alternatives, because the question always remains: After we tear down the status quo, what do we put in its place?

I think if we have the right alternative, the support for tearing down the status quo would be a lot wider and it could actually be done. But in order to do that, we need to look at WHY why have the status quo, why it works. For instance you talked about "getting at the CIA". If that is a defining motivation, you of course know that puts you in the same camp as every other hostile intelligence agency operating in the US, and you can expect to be treated accordingly. The CIA and counter-intel exist because they work to some extent, and the exact same tricks would be deployed on us if we didn't have them, that djinni is out of the bottle. But can we talk about a real open-source security infrastructure? Can we talk about ways to explore superior alternatives that protect us from foreign shadowy entities while reducing our need to be shadowy ourselves? I think we can, and should.

So we know we need to focus on the alternatives. Alternative energy is a go, its GOING to happen. The greed of those trying to prevent it isn't powerful enough to overcome the corporate/military interests that require to energy security, so that's only a matter of time. But its a good thing for any campaign to have, even the republicans are advocating strongly for it this election. The real changes that need to happen are the economic ones. Some how, some way, we need to establish a reality based economy. I could write a lot of thoughts on this but it's getting late...

Regardless, I don't think a grass-roots political solution is likely, I think strategically influence is the most effective thing now. The real position of power to get into right now is intelligent advocacy, getting ideas out there, getting the debate going on. Implementing ideas on a small scale so they can serve as models. The world needs our big ideas now. Its time for people like you and I to start really getting them out there...

[arendt]

72. I have proposed what to put in its place...

No one listened.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/arendt/75 = part 1
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/arendt/74 = part 2

My attitude is that you can't control a complex system with a system that is less complex. Unless you just want to loot the more complex system. So, I am proposing that we must specialize as voters if we are to have any control over our complex society.

In my articles above, I list spying as one of the things we must get under control if we are to have democracy.

Here are my (first time written) thoughts on that:

When your body makes a dangerous enzyme that it uses for fighting/killing germs or for remodeling (i.e., tearing down) tissue, it makes that enzyme in a proto-form. The enzyme is either "capped" or made in two parts. The proto-enzyme (or zymogen) is transported to the site of the action and then activated. When it has done its work, it is "tagged" for cleanup and immediately thrown into a garbage disposal (the proteosome), which tears it apart.

The same should be true of spies. It was unbelievably stupid to create an agency that has the power to make itself invisible to government (rules by which the CIA did not have to report the drug activities of its agents to the FBI or DEA) and to make it self-perpetuating (self-funding CIA proprietary companies and their crooked banks). Its like attaching yourself to a drip feed of rattlesnake venom - it will just dissolve you into pus.

So here are some ideas":

1. Nobody works for a spy agency for more than 10 years. At the end of that time, all records are handed off. This would force better record keeping.

2. Anyone who worked anywhere near the action (to be defined, clearly) is watched for the REST OF HIS/HER LIFE by a new agency, whose sole job is to keep tabs on ex-spies.

3. Spy agencies are populated by lotteries, like a draft. The bulk of the jobs would be bureaucratic, and arranged for a two-year turnover - like the old two-year army draft. Once in the agencies, you can secretly try out for being a field agent. If you succeed, you leave the agency after your draft period, but you continue to work for them, up to your ten year active life. Of course, that would leave all spies under age 30. So, maybe this draft lottery extends over an entire lifetime? Or maybe, you leave the bureaucracy with no special knowledge at the end of your draft, and you become operative ten or twenty years later? Of course, now we have our own government running sleeper agents in our own country. The possibilities for corruption are immense.

I find your phrase, "an open-source security environment", very intriguing. Can you elaborate? Does it address the problems I just raised?

arendt

[lvx35]

86. Wow.

My attitude is that you can't control a complex system with a system that is less complex. Unless you just want to loot the more complex system. So, I am proposing that we must specialize as voters if we are to have any control over our complex society.

Yeah, you REALLY need to make sure to get your ideas out there....

When I read that, what immediately popped into my mind was certain parasites who control their hosts in the biological world, as a counter example, but in your next paragraph I that you're on top of this idea and two steps ahead.

Okay, the first thing about the intelligence world I would like to say is that there is this illusion that its coming entirely out of government agencies when in fact its coming out of corporations. The mass privatizations that we see in the military also have been in their world, and the technological aspect, which is increasingly important, is almost entirely developed by third party contractors. Of course you know about contractors like Lockheed Martin and the role they play, but also look up Seisint, (one of many) and their story to see how deeply integrated these corporate powers are to the core information managing capabilities of the intelligence community. What emerges is a picture of a intelligence community that's almost completely controlled by corporations, or relying on corporate technology. These corporations have the ability to carry out high level spying operations on their own. Take a look at the NSA AT&T spying scandal for example. The scandal was that AT&T had a splitter in some room that was offering backbone internet signals to NSA for survelliance. Big scandal, but would anybody notice if AT&T had a little room doing the same thing with an employee monitoring the signal for "quality assurance purposes?" probably not. Yet the intelligence gathering capability of that employee in the little room would rival that of the NSA.

So we need to be real about this. If restraints are placed on intelligence agencies alone, we know the result to be that the intelligence gathering will be further outsourced to corporations, and sold through backdoor channels. The fact is that this is really happening already, a huge amount of intelligence gathering is being done through companies. Safeway card, my bank, etc. etc. They are collecting information and handing it over.

So at this point, its worth questioning what our government even is. The traditional corporatist model, as in Nazi Germany, seems to be the target...Corporate control without competition. If we have a show government backed by a shadow corporate government, legislation that will regulate intelligence agencies will just be another dance in the show, it will accomplish nothing real. So that's the main thing to be aware of. The changes need to be sweeping, economic, and control corporate power so it doesn't eclipse government power. That's critical, because we need a government with the POWER to actually enact legislative changes, which we are falling short of.

As far as the open source thing, have you heard of open source software? The relevant information is this: Software is writtin in human readable languages like C/C++/Java. This human readable format describes the flow of the software program. It is then compiled to machine code, which in not readable by humans. Anyway, the dominant idea for a long time was that keeping the source code private (closed source) created software with better security, because people were less likely to know how it worked. But it turns out that open source software, where everybody can see the code and know how it works, can be just as if not more secure with the right development team. (Open BSD is a good example) This is part of a deeper phenomenon regarding information, its used in cryptography too (the security of a cryptosystem should never rely on the secrecy of its algorithm, only its keys)

The point is that security does not have to depend on secrecy of the system, its a universal truth that's hard for some reason for people to see, but its demonstrated in many fields. If you want to build a secure safe, open up the blueprint and have lots of safe makers and safe crackers comment on it. You often end up with a safe that everybody has the blue print for, but nobody can crack...While the safe with the secret blueprint more often has a secret back door (put in by one of the designers) made only for himself, but which is discovered by master safecrackers.

People need to understand this, so we can DEMAND transparency first from corporations, then from government. Transparency WITH security. We need to understand we can have a system that keeps us safe from terrorists AND we know how it works, (like the uncrackable safe). This way we can provide our security as a unified nation, instead of relying on a secret elite with rights that transcend our own who can intercept our communications, come into our homes, etc. Our security from hostile foreigners won't then require us to be treated as well, hostile foreigners.

Peace.

[arendt]

89. I've been at this topic almost two days, and am getting tired; but I will do my best...

to address what you say.

I see two topics: the privatization of government, and the idea of open security.

1. Privatization

Since I have worked for some of the corporate shops that you describe, it has been implicit in my thinking that the corps are part of the problem. But, I thank you for making it explicit. My Democracy 2.0 idea was always predicated on self-bootsrapping, not on voting out the current government and voting in D2.0. Still, your point gives me pause, because there is nothing in my proposal to prevent corporate executives or corporate deep political operatives from openly running for office in D2.0. My thinking was always that 20k elected officials were simply too many to corrupt. It would cost too much. But, now I wonder. How many operatives does the FBI/DHS/etc have in country? How many corporate executives are there who could pay for enough publicity to get elected.

However, the up side of them running openly is that it gets the shadow government out into the daylight.

Bottom line: time for a re-think on how corporate-proof D2.0 is now and could ever be.

2. Open Security

I use Red Hat at work and follow the EFF and Larry Lessig, so I get Open Source. I just don't see how it could possibly apply to agents in the field. Let me give you an analogy.

There is one business school book that really has some content: "The Innovator's Dilemma", by Christensen of HBS. He says that when the technology in a field is not mature, that is when differential advantage is most profitable. It is also when the technology is less modular, more idiosyncratic. When the technology level increases, so that its easy to get the task at hand done, then profits fall and commoditization sets in. Commoditization drives modularity.

My thinking about spying is that it is always "immature" technology. To do face-to-face spying or assassinating, you need the best people. You can't do it with mass produced people, i.e. bureaucrats. Spying is like weaponry, where people will pay a fortune for a 1% advantage, because that 1% is the difference between life and death.

So, my contention is that, while you can bureaucratize and open source the machinery of spying - that is, record keeping, electronic means of snooping, etc - you cannot open source the agent in the field. And, those people will have to be watched forever. They are too dangerous.

-----

Well that's it for me. I said that it would take DU a while to digest my essay on deep politics. Well, its going to take me a while to digest all the feedback on the essay that I got from DU. I do appreciate your contribution; and I will look for your posts elsewhere.

Isn't it great to have DU back from the tong war over the candidates?

arendt

[lvx35]

90. Yeah, it is great to have it back.

I've been haunted by these dreams about Charlie Manson, you know the strategic murders that were supposed to cause a race war between whites and blacks, the "Helter Skelter". Its good to see Obama and the Clintons starting to make nice, and its good not to hear about all the crap!!!

Anyway, yeah, I'm tired too...Of course there's always more to say, especially in response to the ideas you talk about here, but not now. But do my a favor and IM me if post anymore along these lines. Its good stuff.


Edit: BTW, I didn't start to get deeply into your essays you linked to until after I responded. I just wanted to say briefly: You know what Bill Clinton is really good at? He can take a complex deep idea like yours, and distill it down to a saying everybody can relate to. I would take a minute to look at that. Big ideas like yours don't go down easily in this ADD culture of ours. You're going to need to find ways to hook people in with a spoonful of sugar before you give them their medicine... :)

[arendt]

93. But, how do you simplify complexity?

If you are into Complexity Theory, there is a marvelous book by Ian Stewart called "The Collapse of Complexity". Stewart argues that, in order for the world to be simple enough for us to comprehend it, there must be natural "singularities" that "collapse" the vast complexity and chaos of the world into islands of relative stability. I forget any of the examples right now. But he makes the point quite cleverly, with neologisms like "simplexity" and "complicity".

So, I need to find one of those islands to describe our deep political process. Otherwise, you wind up like PDS, with a convoluted trail of third-party cutouts and disappeared evidence that would glaze over the eyes of a rabid crime novel fan. (I think they prefer whiskey, not sugar. :-) )

Also, the smart crooks (who rise to the top of the criminal enterprise, and direct and protect the stupid crooks) are always complexify-ing. If there is a rule, they are looking for a way to avoid it, to bend it, to corrupt it. That makes it hard to simplify.

So, while I take your point, it will take a lot of work to operationalize it. Gee, I wish Bill Clinton were on our side.

When I recover and write something new, I will IM you.

Good to make your acquaintance.

arendt

[lvx35]

94. AH! There you go again with those thought provoking questions!

Now I'm going to have to buy that book. AND you made me think again damnit! Now I have to say as a computer nerd - You probably know there are two ways to compress things: Lossless, in which the same data is represented more efficiently, and lossy, in which information is discarded. Jpeg images are an example of lossy, they represent the original image in terms of the information most needed by the human brain to construct the picture. So they are good for a certain context. In the case of the Jpeg, that context is views by the human brain. Another lossy compression of the same original data might be far more effective for what's relevant for a certain type of computer analysis, you see? So the bottom line is that to reduce complex information to much simpler forms, the simple forms have to have the information most effective in the given context...So my answer for you is that there is no ONE simplification of these things you can put out there, you need different ones for different contexts. :)

Anyway, that was a thought you just made me have...But do you really think Bill Clinton or Nancy Pelosi aren't "on our side"? How do you know? Just because a creature can swim doesn't mean it hates the land...

[arendt]

95. A computer nerd who makes biological references and is into deep politics...

be still my beating heart.

----

But, if you have done compression, you know that the Holy Grail is an "invariant representation". Some neuroscientists have argued that intelligence is compression, that in the act of compressing, you are reducing the input to its essentials - sort of like a hidden layer in a neural net. I sure hope that I don't need a different simple explanation for each POV. Also, there is the translation example: its much easier to build N translators that all translate to and from language X to one universal language than it is to build N * N translators to translate directly between any language X and any other language Y.

I am absolutely convinced that Clinton and Pelosi long ago sold us out to live in their bubble world. They did it for the money, for the power. They did it because this is what our society holds out as rewards to our political leaders. They are as likely to come back to land as a whale is to grow legs and walk out of the water.

I'll be talking to you.

arendt

[lvx35]

96. Wow, incredible.

I was just thinking of that today, but didn't have that name for it. (not THAT into compression) But an incredibly timely comment. Right now I'm trying to map view-invariant representation I just read about out of 3D space, into the "information space" it would need to be in to be fruitful for our metaphor. Nothing yet but it seems a rich line of meditation.

Please, yes. Do be talking to me. This conversation has opened up some doors and fired off some really interesting ideas...

:)

[Political Heretic]

69. That is freaking fantastic!

[slipslidingaway]

47. In the political videos section, posted by CGowen

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=38319

[arendt]

48. Thank you. CGowen himself gave me that link in #25 above.

But, thanks for the reminder. Now that I'm home, I can listen to it.

arendt

[slipslidingaway]

50. YW, as you can tell I did not read the replies nor your post yet...

saving for later. Thank you for posting on the subject.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

55. Very involved discussion here

Kicking

[arendt]

62. Bedtime; but please continue to discuss - especially #42 n/t

[BeHereNow]

64. For Arendt and Scarlet, already passed it to Orwellian on another thread-

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20080116&articleId=7813
Enjoy.
BHN:grouphug:

[arendt]

70. Thanks, BNH. That's a good link to have in this thread.

I find Global Research to be a reliable source.

arendt

[Greyhound]

66. Too late to rec but here's a kick...

:kick:

[Elspeth]

68. And another

:kick:

[Echo In Light]

74. Quote:

"Conformity and obedience, Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, Makes slaves of men and of the human frame, A mechanized automaton." ~ Percy Bysshe Shelley

[arendt]

75. "Consume and reproduce." - from "They Live" by John Carpenter n.t

[Echo In Light]

76. You know J.C. specifically had it released on Bush's inauguration

[arendt]

80. Didn't know that. Love the image. Can you give me a link to it? n/t

[Echo In Light]

81. Here...

The odd thing is I remember watching one of those cable doc's about Carpenter, and that claim was made. However, the film was apparently released on election day: Nov 4, 1988. In our small town the film never arrived, so I didn't see it until it arrived at video rental stores a few yrs after.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live

[arendt]

82. Thanks. n/t

[tom_paine]

78. Excellent post and discussion. K & R.

[Wiley50]

83. and one more

Thanks for a great thread

[arendt]

84. Still looking for comments on the subthread beginning with #42. n/t

[arendt]

85. Last call for comments on #42. n/t

[BeHereNow]

87. My thoughts-

Firstly yes, follow the money indeed and "the money" is exactly why
all four actions will be difficult to undertake.
(MY REPLIES IN CAPS, NOT SHOUTING, JUST CLARIFYING MY RESPONSES...)

1. We need to legalize at least some drugs. Put them on prescription. I don't care how. Drugs fund a lot of this; and drugs are currency - small, high value. Legalization will reduce our prison population, which defunds the Prison Industrial Complex.

-THE PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IS BIG MONEY FOR THE CORPORATE GOONS WHO PROFIT FROM THE INCARCERATION OF
NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS, MANY OF THEM SERVING TIME FOR DRUG RELATED CHARGES. LEGALIZING DRUGS WOULD
SERIOUSLY LESSEN THE PROFITS OF THE CORPORATIONS WHO BENEFIT. AS YOU KNOW, NOTHING HAPPENS THESE DAYS
THAT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE BIG MONEY BOYS, SO I'M NOT HOLDING MY BREATH ON THIS ACTION.
THE LAWMAKERS WHO WOULD NEED TO PASS THIS ARE OWNED BY THE CORPORATIONS WHO MAKE MONEY FROM
THE PRISON POPULATION, SO WHO EXACTLY WOULD ACT TO LEGALIZE DRUGS?

2. We need alternative energy programs. They reduce the power of Big Oil. They reduce the justification for military intervention and the MIC. They can create huge numbers of domestic jobs and domestic industries.

-ABSOLUTELY, HOWEVER AGAIN, WILL BIG MONEY ACTUALLY ALLOW SUCH A THING?
"WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?" CASE IN POINT. I THINK ON A GRASS ROOT LEVEL,
EACH OF US CAN WORK TOWARDS CONSUMING LESS OIL AND ALSO BEGIN TRANSFORMING
"OUR OWN BACK YARD" WITHIN OUR COMMUNITIES. HOWEVER, I SERIOUSLY BELIEVE
THAT SHOULD ONE OF US INVENT AN ANSWER TODAY, IT WOULD BE SUPPRESSED BY THE MONEY FAT KATS.

3. We need to get the banking and stock trading systems back under government regulation. That would let us trace all the money laundering and CIA proprietary companies. Given the current economic debacle, this regulation should not be impossible.

-GOVERNMENT REGULATION WOULD WORK IF WE COULD FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PUT A LEGITIMATE ONE IN PLACE.
AGAIN, THE CORRUPTION BENEFITS THE VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO REGULATE IT.

4. We need to end the various wars. Doing so will reduce the cover for the CIA black programs. Ending the war is finally popular; but getting at the CIA is on no one's list of things they want to do. This is the hardest nut to crack.

-I THINK THE FIRST STEP IN THAT DIRECTION IS TO CREATE A SOCIETY IN WHICH OUR YOUTH HAVE CAREER OPTIONS
OTHER THAN MILITARY SERVICE. THE MILITARY HAS REPLACED THE "ENTRY LEVEL" EMPLOYMENT POSITION IN
THIS COUNTRY. THE CORPORATE MANIPULATED EDUCATION SYSTEM ENFORCES THIS STRUCTURE; WE PRODUCE
STUDENTS WHO CAN BARELY READ OR WRITE, MUCH LESS THINK CRITICALLY. THE SUREST WAY TO ELIMINATE
THE GLOBAL BLACK OPS IS TO SIMPLY STOP SUPPLYING THEM WITH OUR CHILDREN WHO ARE NOTHING MORE
THAN CANNON FODDER FOR THE CORPORATE MACHINE.

[arendt]

88. Thanks for addressing the points...

I will get to them in detail. But I note that in each one, you point out that the PTB will never allow such changes to be made. Well, experiencing that for the last year with a faux Democratic majority has made it clear that is true in the present circumstance.

But, I suggest to you that the fact the entire country, both Dems and GOPers, have seen that their wishes count for nothing in the current system will cause a change in circumstance. I can't predict how it will show up; and that means that no one else can either. In times as turbulent as this, there are openings for new ideas.

Of my four points, I think that financial regulation will have the most support from traditional conservatives.

After that, despite the oil industry veto over support for alternative energy, it will happen. Non-oil businesses will support the technology for purely economic reasons.

After that, I agree that I am pissing into the wind. Legalizing drugs. Ha. Ha. Ha. In fact, with RFID chips and surveilance bracelets, its more likely that the whole country will become one big open air prison - like a hi-tech Gaza Strip.

And rolling back the MIC? We will have to pry the government out of the cold dead hands of the MIC. Is the country ready to listen to an argument against bombing everyone who opposes us? I haven't seen any evidence of that. I still think that people simply believe the war has been "mismanaged". They still don't get that it has been deliberately mismanaged in order to maximize profits and to grab as much influence over oil as possible.

----

So, I guess, on my own points, I only see two as do-able unless there is some unpredictable change in national attitude. The only way to get that would be for Timothy Leary to come back from the dead and say: "Tune out, turn off, and drop out."

Sorry for the cynicism, but you make some good points.

arendt

[BeHereNow]

91. I have never found you to be cynical Arendt.

On the contrary, I think most would agree that I am the cynical voice-
a pessimistic downer to the majority of DU.

I think the line between pessimistic and realistic must be reevaluated at this point though.
Realistic is the first step towards changing it. Dismissing the facts as "pessimistic" thinking
or conspiracy theories" is simply a denial of reality, something Americans have perfected
as an art, even here, on DU.

All of your points are excellent and would change the movement of the cogs in the machinery
significantly to our collective benefit. Trouble is, too many people stay in denial about the
just how large the machine is and how the "democratic" party remains complicit
and integral to its operation. The machine was never intended to produce anything
that would benefit the average person, quite the opposite.

I agree with you, I do not see the public waking up any day soon with the
awareness of WHAT the problem is. Therefore, the public acting in unison to
free ourselves from the grip of the machine operators is unlikely at best.

The factory owners work night and day to keep people ignorant and compliant
and if that fails, they move to plan b. Either way, so far and until the majority
fully comprehends the problem and solution, we lose.

BHN

[arendt]

92. The total hijacking of the Democratic Party is relatively recent, and people are still in denial...

about it.

The Permanent Campaign (TPC) has done a good job of keeping people from realizing that when they voted for change in 2006, they got "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" - Reid and Pelosi, with Chucky Schumer and DiFi thrown in. They will give Edwards just enough oxygen that the Corporate Media can pretend that "the people have spoken" on the Democratic side. That ought to be enough narcotic to get the next corporate sellout (can't predict D vs R) into the WH.

This country isn't going to wake up until the jail door slams shut behind them, and they blink and ask "where's my happy meal?". By then it will be too late. Speaking of which, how's the FISA filibuster going?

Got to run.

Peace

arendt

P.S. how can a Buddhist be cynical? Wise and worldly can look like cynical, but I don't think its true.